High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Arjun Rohtagi vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 July, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Arjun Rohtagi vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 July, 2010
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CWJC No.7515 of 1996
                 ARJUN ROHTAGI SON OF LATE KEDAR NATH
                 ROHGTAGI, RETIRED ACTING CHIEF ENGINEER, ROAD
                 CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN,
                 PATNA RESIDENT OF CC/38, PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE
                 COLONY, KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH
                 DISTRICT PATNA.
                                                Versus
                 1. STATE OF BIHAR ROAD CONSTRUCTION
                 DEPARTMENT, PATNA.
                 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION
                 DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
                 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ROAD CONSRTRUCTION
                 DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA.
                                              -----------

For the Petitioner :- M/S. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr.
Advocate & Mr. Manoj Madhav
For the State :- Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, A.C. to S.C.XI

—–

4 13/07/2010 This is the third visit of the petitioner to the High

Court. Earlier orders of punishment have come to be

interfered with by the High Court for certain legal infirmities

found therein and twice over the matter was remanded back

for the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance

with law. Every time, it is the case of the petitioner, that

similar infirmity was committed by them. He has made

strenuous submissions on the order of punishment contained

in annexure-1 dated 11.4.1996 but those submissions have

lost their meaning in view of the significant development.
-2-

Admitted position is that the petitioner superannuated from

service on 30.9.1990. Order of punishment, as already stated

above, is dated 11.4.1996. Two of those orders of

punishment had no meaning. First punishment order is that

the petitioner would not be entitled to promotion for two

years from 17.08.1990. Since the petitioner retired within a

month and a half, obviously no promotion was expected

within that period to be granted to him. The order of

withholding of increment with effect from 17.08.1990 would

also have lost meaning because of the time frame within

which he had retired. Issue, therefore, is whether the third

punishment of deduction of Rs.10,000/- in ten instalments

from his pension could be passed after almost five and a half

year of his retirement because deduction from pension or

withholding of pension, in any manner, requires a proceeding

to be carried out under the Bihar Pension Rules. There are

two provisions which entitle the State to impose punishment

or withholding of pension as the case may be. Rules are Rule

43(b) and Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules.

Submission of the learned counsel is that neither of

the ingredients nor the time frame fixed therein allows the
-3-

respondents to pass an order of recovery of Rs.10,000/- in ten

instalments from the pension of the petitioner. Time frame

fixed under rule 43(b) of the Rules is four years from the date

of the event and the charge of illegal appointment for which

the so called punishment has been imposed relates to many

years ago and not within four years.

So far as proceeding under Rule 139 of the Bihar

Pension Rules is concerned, that must be initiated within

three years from the date of sanction of pension. There is

nothing to indicate that the order of punishment of recovery

has been passed pursuant to any proceeding under Rule 139

of the Rules. In fact, this part of punishment has been

appended as part of other punishments which have been

imposed upon the petitioner in terms of the order contained in

Annexure-1.

There is nothing to indicate by the learned counsel

for the State that the third punishment was passed on a

proceeding under the Bihar Pension Rules. If the procedure

has not been followed, then the third punishment cannot be

imposed in a mechanical manner.

On this aspect the petitioner succeeds. Punishment
-4-

of deduction of Rs.10,000/- in ten instalments from the

pension of the petitioner is quashed. Rest of the punishment

order, in view of the opinion of the Court expressed in the

earlier part of the order, need not to be interfered with.

This writ application is allowed in part.

Respondents would be well advised to refund the amount so

deducted from the pension of the petitioner to him preferably

within one month from the date of communication or

production of a copy of this order. There will be no order as

to costs.

AMIN                       (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)